Archive for the “Caseflow” Category

With enhanced revenue collection the name of the game nowadays as a means to lessen the impact of budget cuts, I offer this discussion about an interesting concept called the Court Compliance Office that I implemented as a court administrator in the then-South Bay Municipal Court in Torrance, CA.

CLICK HERE to download a copy of the Court Compliance Office Report for more details, but here is a quick rundown …

Unclog post disposition criminal court calendars by delegating routine tasks to the clerks’ office instead of in the courtroom. These could include allowing defendants to convert community service into a fine (and vice versa), giving extensions for fine payment, and re-referring defendants to specialized programs such as drinking driver treatment programs. The trick is to have a clear understanding among the judges as to what specific tasks the clerks are allowed to perform, and aligning these tasks with the particular operating desires of individual judges.

A court colleague was recently assigned management duties for a new court compliance office and asked for my advice. Here is my reply:

1. Be sure to take credit cards, across the counter, online and by automated interactive phone service (IVR). The bottom line is to make it easy for your customers to comply.
2. Use skip trace services to refresh addresses and work accounts before you turn them over to a collection agency. There are third party providers who do a good job of this, and I would also recommend using www.Revq.com for your accounts receivable software. It’s cost effective and has a ton of third party providers, such as skip trace, notice generation, etc.
3. IMMEDIATELY at the time of sentencing, route the defendants through your compliance office for a financial evaluation and to debrief them on what just occurred at sentencing and what is expected to comply. This will require that court clerks docket sentencing real time so your staff can see the terms and conditions, but the trade off is worth it.
4. Partner with local hospitals and city/county services to “packet” accounts receivable. If someone owes you, they may also owe the hospitals, city, etc. Ventura County (CA) Superior Court used to do this very effectively.
5. Work with your judges to build trust in the effectiveness of the Court Compliance Office so that eventually the judge will sentence and give you one year to gain full compliance for fines and other conditions. If a defendant violates in the interim, the judge gets them back, otherwise you keep and work with them for up to one year without judicial intervention. If you can’t get compliance in one year, then give them back to the court for ultimate disposition (i.e., jail).

Admittedly, the Court Compliance Office model works best in limited jurisdiction courts handling infractions and misdemeanors; however, we are increasingly seeing post disposition matters eat judicial calendar time and effective strategies are needed to move these matters out of the court. This is especially true if rulings and outcomes are routine and predictable.

My staff and I are proud to have won the California Administrative Office of the Courts’ prestigious Ralph Kleps Award for judicial innovation for this program back in 1994. I left that year to end a 21-year career as a public sector court manager and embark on a private sector career as a court management consultant. It was great to make the transition on a high note !!

Photo credit = Microsoft clip art

Is it the current economic crunch or do jurors take their duties so seriously that they develop a low tolerance for BS? My experience shows it’s the latter, but the former certainly has dramatically affected jury service of late.

When I was a court administrator in Los Angeles County, my darling wife served as a courtroom clerk assigned to limited jurisdiction civil trials in another court. The economy is always an issue, but there was nowhere near the financial squeeze in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s compared to what we find ourselves in today. Her experience was that jury panels routinely threw out civil cases when they smelled a lack of sincerity or a hint of the BS factor.

A friend and colleague from Ohio (let’s call him Milt) reports that in his service as a judge, juries would often find for the defense when they sensed that claims were petty or not worth their time or attention. To illustrate his point, Milt passed along a story from the Los Angeles Times in which jurors berated a case before it even started because they didn’t think it was worthy of their losing time off of work to hear it. The plaintiff wisely waived jury and opted for a bench trial after this demonstration.

The story has an even deeper undertone that finding qualified jurors to serve is becoming more difficult in our nation’s trial courts because of the economic hardship that service imposes, especially on the self-employed. I think the part that is missed here is that attorneys, too, are affected by the financial crunch and some may now be more willing to take petty cases to jury trial than in the past.

While I have dutifully showed up for service the few times I have been called, I also appeared with proof in hand that my calendar availability was limited to short cause matters. As fortune would have it, I was never seated, although I did go through voir dire once. The judge and counsel wisely noted that having a court management consultant on the panel would not likely work in anyone’s favor.

In my view, there are two major issues at play here … first, jurors take their service VERY seriously. Sure, they will often do everything in their power to avoid service, but once chosen, they largely pay close attention and respect their powerful role. Second, courts and lawyers should take heed that while most people will suck it up and do their civic duty, they very much resent having their time wasted. That means courts should honor a one-day-one-trial rule when summoning jury venires and attorneys should carefully choose which cases to put before a jury.

So I am not chalking up the latest jury news to good jurors gone bad … I just think current economic conditions should cause all of us to re-examine our priorities and the effectiveness of our jury management.

Photo credit = Twelve Angry Men

I’m not ashamed to admit that I love my job. I loved it when I started as court staff in the Los Angeles Municipal Court in the 1970s, and I have really enjoyed my work as a court management consultant since the mid 1990s. What particularly jazzes me is working with caseflow management issues, either helping to improve a client’s calendar or teaching a caseflow course. Next week, I conduct a hands-on caseflow workshop in Orlando for Florida case managers.

OK, so I’m looking forward to thawing out a bit in Florida. Not that Eureka, CA is all that cold, it’s just that winters here are a bit rainy and overcast. However, my business travels have dropped me into some rather snowy and bitter cold climes of late and the prospect of sunshine and blue skies is appealing.

I also enjoy the Florida courts. I have several friends there and I have worked on a few rewarding projects in the state.

Aside from the fun of teaching caseflow, this is a hands-on workshop instead of a full, for-credit class, which means we get to roll-up our sleeves and get into the mechanics of particular calendars instead of a lot of book learning.

There are a ton of attendees (150+), but we’ve carved out plenty of focus group work in separate case types so those who came to solve a particular problem will have a higher likelihood of walking away with something substantive. I am also aided by several senior court executives who have agreed to serve as facilitators for the various groups.

What is likely to come out of this? In all probability, some implementation strategies for Differentiated Case Management, some solid project management tools and the shared experience of learning from colleagues in similar courts.

I am grateful to the Institute for Court Management and the Florida Office of State Courts Administration for allowing me to be part of their court managers conference. The two full days of this workshop will be rewarding for me, and I will work hard to ensure it is for those who share their valuable time to attend.

And no, I will have no time for Disney World.

Photo credit = Microsoft clip art

Our good friends at the National Center for State Courts’ Jur-E Bulletin covered the new online jury system for the US District Courts. 52 districts out of 94 have the system up and running with an expected 81 to fire it up by the end of the year. All I can say is WHOOPPEE !!!

The eJuror Program is appended to the courts’ Jury Management System and allows jurors to respond to summons, answer qualifying questionnaires, update personal information, check when they are supposed to appear, request an excuse or deferment and select alternative service dates online. Wow !!

The pilot courts reported that 33% of the test jurors chose to use the system and the Administrative Office plans to track the data over the rollout period to see if the number increases. The Travis County (TX) District Clerk’s I-Jury program showed a disproportionately high number of citizens used their online services compared to demographics that indicated the elderly, the poor and Hispanics would likely not use the Internet. The Clerk’s Office anecdotal evidence showed the previous manual system requiring an initial personal appearance for qualification and subsequent appearance for the actual service was so unpopular that traditional technology have-nots found alternative ways to access a computer just to avoid the hassle.

I’m particularly pleased with the development because this means the feds have raised the bar for state trial courts by offering online jury services as a baseline E-court delivery application. It will be a lot harder now to argue that virtual jury services are too hard or not worth the effort.

Coincidentally, I have been called for jury duty at my local court and only offered in-person, phone or fax as methods of managing my service. I would MUCH prefer to surf my way through qualification, postponement and service confirmation. I plan to bring this development to their attention.

Photo credit = Norman Rockwell’s The Holdout at Global Gallery

Dear Santa … this has been one helluva year, big guy, and all the good little judges, court managers and staff have worked their tushies off trying to deliver quality justice with scarce resources, no raises and an increasingly cranky public that is only surpassed in its crankiness by the funding authorities. So here is my wish list for our courts and the heroes that work in them.

1. A stable, predictable funding source – OK, things are tough, I get it. We all know it’s time to tighten our belts, postpone big ticket purchases and defer widespread raises. However, we cannot exist without some indication of what we can expect in terms of funding in the next few years. We can’t plan, develop programs, react to caseload shifts and respond to public needs if we have no clue whether this is a temporary blip or a full time hell. You’re not closing the police department or fire department, and you should consider courts in the same category of urgency. As the New York Times opined about the budgetary impacts on NY courts, state courts are not just another government agency. They are at the center of the nation’s legal system and enforcement of the rule of law, handling more than 95 percent of all civil and criminal litigation. This vital institution — constitutionally, an independent, co-equal branch of government — has been spiraling into crisis as cash-starved states struggle with huge deficits.
2. Read the rest of this entry »

The National Center for State Courts’ ever informative and entertaining Jur-E Bulletin brings us jury related news this week that is also related to the swine flu. How you ask?

Philladelphia’s KWY news radio reports that a young man serving as a juror in the early stages of a medical malpractice trial (of all things) complained of swine-flu-like symptoms resulting in the declaration of a mistrial in order to safeguard the health of those who may have been exposed to the fellow. The problem? He was faking it to get out of jury service! YIKES!!!

In a wise ruling, the judge in the case ordered the miscreant to sit in a trial court for three days to observe the justice system and hopefully to see how juries operate.

I will refrain from editorial comment on the moral lessons from this soap opera, but suffice it to say that if you can’t spot at least five of them you aren’t paying very close attention.

In the spirit of Thanksgiving, let me say that I am thankful to live in this great country and to have the honor to work in our system of justice. I wish you and your family a holiday in which you enjoy the many small blessings of life.

Photo credit = Jay Adkins blog

The diminishing number of trials by jury in civil cases has become an accepted phenomenon. This week’s edition of the National Center for State Courts’ Jur-E Bulletin carried a story from the Richmond (VA) Times Dispatch reporting that criminal jury trials are also on the wane.

The right to a trial by jury in criminal and civil cases is embedded in the fifth, sixth and seventh amendments to the US Constitution. So why would the number of jury trials shrink?

According to Robert Burns, law professor at Northwestern University School of Law, in his book entitled The Death of the American Trial …

The reasons that the trial is dying are complicated and differ depending on the context. Lawyers’ fees, judges’ procedural rules and other technical steps that must be followed on the way to court make trials more expensive. Long delays in getting to trial make settlements more appealing to plaintiffs. Fewer lawyers have the experience and skills to go to trial. Because of legal developments, judges more regularly dismiss cases in motions and in summary judgments — based solely on papers and affidavits.

The Virginia experience with shrinking criminal trials is largely attributable to local legal provisions that juries, not judges, fashion sentences upon conviction and are not bound by sentencing guidelines. The result is often harsher sentencing after a conviction by jury.

The vanishing civil trial may be just as attributable to the pervasiveness of Alternative Dispute Resolution that offers less costly and more timely case disposition options. I referred to ADR as Appropriate Dispute Resolution, because I believe many litigants view justice as being served when both sides give up something as opposed to one side winning all, and therefore prefer a mediated outcome. A little tracked statistic is the percentage of satisfied judgments after a mediated versus adjudicated outcome, which at least in small claims studies have shown to be two-to-three times higher.

There is something to say about a citizen’s right to his or her “day in court,” including the catharsis of telling one’s story. The harsh reality is that jury trials are expensive and in an overwhelming number of instances, unnecessary.

With some exceptions, nationwide we try approximately 2% of cases filed in our trial courts. This number may be on the wane, but even 10 or 15 years ago the number was not more than 3%. So no matter how you cut it, we’re dealing with a substantial minority of the total caseload.

That’s my verdict !!

Photo credit = Microsoft clip art

In two recent consulting projects, I made recommendations that the local courts help to establish neighborhood dispute resolution centers where trained mediators would attempt to resolve minor civil and misdemeanor disputes, even before case is filed in court (but certainly a resource to which filed cases could be referred). Since one of those clients asked for follow-up recommendations as to how to implement such a program, I posted an inquiry on the Court2Court listerv and got a terrific response.

Civil alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has long been recognized as a worthwhile effort. In criminal ADR, it is often referred to as “restorative justice.” Here is a summary of the responses …

LUBBOCK, TX

Our court runs a Dispute Resolution Center responsible for mediation services in a number of areas, including neighborhood disputes.  Criminal disputes such as an individual “borrowing” another family member’s car where the police were called are often referred for mediation.  The program handles thousands of those cases per year, which are not filed in the court.  It has been very successful.  The program receives good reviews from victims who often feel like they got the resolution they needed.  As a side note, the Dispute Resolution Center also conducts mediation in almost all of our civil and domestic relations cases (which are automatically referred and must be mediated prior to receiving a trial setting). The service began in 1985 and the court refers pre filed disputes for ADR intervention. The DA has also referred filed  felonies and misdemeanors. We also receive pre filed “neighborhood ” referrals from various law enforcement officers, municipal courts and  JPs.  We are working on some exciting things in this area and I believe the Lubbock delivery model is exceptional.

TALLAHASSEE, FL

I know that Martha Weinstein was the founder and the group initially focused on neighborhood disputes. Apparently, it evolved into a victim/offender restorative justice program. The current Executive Director appears to be Dale Landry. More resources include:

http://www.cjjohns.com/lawpowerandjustice/commentaries/NeighborhoodJustice.html

http://robtshepherd.tripod.com/mengone.html

TULSA, OK

Since 1982, Tulsa has had in place a program known as ‘project early settlement’ handing both civil and criminal matters and the court is now referring disturbing the peace cases to attempt resolution between neighbors. LeLani Armstrong is the Director of the Project. If you will go to our website, www.cityoftulsa.org, and click on the tab ‘early settlement.’ Early settlement of minor criminal offenses can help restore the peace and harmony between those affected..it is truly a noble project……

ESSEX VICINAGE IN NEWARK, NJ

They were using the Mediator concept extensively  when I was there in 2003, and they worked at the courthouse in a huge room full of conference room stalls with partitions.  The mediators would sit down with the parties, and when necessary an interpreter, and tackle all sorts of issues. I would assume and hope it is still functional.  As I remember it was just for civil cases and it worked amazingly well.

MICHIGAN COURTS

Michigan has a network of 20 community dispute resolution centers and their work with courts spans an array of dispute types ranging from small claims and general jurisdiction general civil and domestic relations cases, to guardianship, child protection and special education cases.  Approximately 80% of the cases managed at the centers are court referred. The 2008 program annual report appears here:

http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/reports/CDRPAnnualReport2008.pdf

Website: http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/dispute/odr.htm

LOS ANGELES, CA

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office conducts a Hearing Officer Program which is a arbitration like program conducted by a Hearing Officer.  They handle minor misdemeanor matters such as neighborhood disputes, petty theft, trespassing, loitering etc.

KLAMATH COUNTY, OR

The Court helped start a neighborhood dispute resolution center about 10 years ago. At that time, there was a small amount of funding available for these services through a small surcharge on civil filings. The Center initially trained a cadre of community volunteer mediators and then opened to provide community services. If I recall correctly, there was a paid part-time Executive Director and one staff person.

Funding rapidly became an issue. In most disputes, of course, there is at least one party that has no interest in a timely resolution. Since mediation is generally voluntary, it became problematic to get the parties into mediation, especially if the involuntary party had to pay for mediation services. Unfortunately, the court didn’t have enough funds to provide financial support to the Center either. Eventually, the Center simply failed to develop adequate funding sources and folded some 6 to 8 years after it had begun.

Since our judges are fully supportive of pre-trial mediation, the Court now operates a small claims mediation program. Before a small claims matter is set for trial, the parties are required to attend a mediation orientation session and at least to meet with a mediator and the other party. After that, participation is voluntary. This program is operated with Court staff who have received the full 40-hour mediation course and practicum required in Oregon. (As a side benefit, approximately a third of our staff are trained problem-solvers, a real advantage in general day-to-day interpersonal relations.)

We also tried a cooperative project with the Communications classes of our local college. Under that program, we assist the student-mediators in getting their practical training and mediator-qualification requirements met, in exchange for their volunteer services in our small claims mediation program. As a practical matter, once the students have completed their requirements, they rarely remain involved in the program.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Kudos to the National Center for State Courts for their terrific Court2Court listserv and many thanks to the court managers who took the time to respond. If you don’t currently subscribe to C2C, I highly recommend it.

Photo credit = Microsoft clip art

Today’s edition of the Jur-E Bulletin from the National Center for State Courts has a great compilation of sample court policies addressing cell phone usage by jurors.

We covered this topic last month with When Good Jurors Go Bad, in which jurors conduct independent research and pull other inappropriate tech-related antics despite admonitions to refrain from these activities.

The sample court policies offered run the spectrum of confiscating cell phones altogether, to allowing jurors to keep them but not use them.

Obviously the cell phone itself is not the problem, but the enhanced smart phone features most of these devices now have that enable web surfing, email and texting. Personally, I favor the policy approach of clearly stating what is acceptable and unacceptable and then holding individuals accountable for honoring the rules, as opposed to playing hall monitor and taking away the offending devices altogether. Some folks have legitimate personal and professional needs to stay in touch.

One thing is for certain … technology will advance and courts have to keep pace to ensure our core functions of accessibility, fairness, timeliness and integrity remain intact.

Cell phones are now an integral part of our lives. Banning them altogether is becoming increasingly difficult. Making sure they don’t subvert our mission is our charge.

Photo credit = Microsoft clip art

Since I left court service as a court administrator in 1994, I have worked in a dizzying number and variety of courts as a consultant and I have lost track of how many court management classes I have taught to judges and court managers all over the world. I was reminded this month how fond I am of California courts and the hard working judges, managers and staff who work in them.

On April 6-8, I taught a caseflow management course in Modesto to 40 court managers from various courts around California. Most of the time I teach these courses, I have to go through a reality check of the different processing idiosyncrasies that exist from state to state (and internationally). However, going through the curriculum in Modesto was like meeting and spending time with old friends you haven’t seen for a long time.

With one exception, there is no other court system that has experienced such cataclysmic change as the California courts. That exception is the Hong Kong Judiciary that experienced a change in sovereignty, the need to re-write their laws and the creation of a new court of final appeal in 1997 after the handover from British sovereignty to the People’s Republic of China. I had the privilege to work with the Hong Kong courts during this historic time, and I served in a leadership role in California during many of the early seismic shifts that occurred in statewide court governance in the early and mid 1990s.

In the short span of 10 years, California courts:

• Began the shift from county to state funding;
• consolidated multiple limited jurisdiction municipal and justice courts into single countywide entities;
• eventually merged all these limited jurisdiction courts into single countywide superior courts; and,
• saw the nearly total shift to state funding with the missing pieces being state ownership of all court facilities (many of these facilities are state owned while others are still in transition).

This is a LOT of change that has not been easy. Yet the judges, management and staff have sucked-it-up, stepped up to the plate and done what was necessary to get through it. Now these brave souls are going through a serious statewide budget crisis that threatens more unpleasant change in the form of reduced staff, reduced hours of operation and fewer tools to get the job done.

Yet, there we were spending two-and-a-half days of their precious time having a professional dialogue about the purposes of courts, how cases progress through the calendars and what they could do to reduce delay while enhancing the quality of justice in the various courts’ calendars. It was inspiring.

So to you California court professionals out there, you have my enormous respect for keeping it all in perspective and maintaining your focus. You rock, big time !!

Photo credit = Microsoft clip art